FATEH SINGH LODHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was appointed as a sub-Inspector of Police on probation with effect from December 2, 1951 by the order of the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan dated 20/21st December, 1951.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was confirmed on the aforesaid post of Sub Inspector of Police by the order of the Inspector General of Police dated September 9, 1952 with effect from August 15, 1952. ACCORDING to the respondents, however, the petitioner was confirmed by the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur dated June 15, 1955 with effect from June 1, 1955. The petitioner thereafter continued to hold the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. On May 18, 1964 the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi sent a notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") along with a statement of allegations, to the petitioner and he was directed to show cause why the punishment of stoppage of five grade increments with future effect be not impose upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply and his case is that he was also given a personal hearing by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. But it is not in dispute hat no final decision was communicated to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid proceedings under Rule 17 of the rules.

(3.) THE last submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was appointed by the Inspector General of Police and he was the disciplinary autho-rity so far as he was concerned and the Deputy Inspector General of Police could not have served the charge sheet and initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide his notice dated September 22, 1970 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed by the Inspector General of Police, but that appointment order dated December 21,1951 related to the appointment of the petitioner on probation. THEre is a difference between the parties as to which authority confirmed the petitioner in his appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. According to the petitioner he was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police by his order dated September 9, 1952 while according to the respondents the petitioner was confirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police by his order dated June 15. 1955. THE order passed by the Inspector General of Police dated July 8, 1968 in the earliar disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is an order which was given inter parties. In that order the Inspector General of Police accepted the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed by his order dated 9/10th September, 1952, and on that basis he quashed the earlier departmental proceedings against the petitioner. THE Inspector General of Police was of the view that the disciplinary enquiry against a person appointed by the Inspector General of Police could not have been initiated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police nor the said authority could inflict any penalty upon such an employee. THEre is no reason not to accept the facts which have been relied upon by the Inspector General of Police while passing his earlier order dated July 8, 1968 and as that order was passed inter parties, it is not possible for the respondents now to dispute that the petitioner was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police. Thus, the Inspector General of Police was the appointing authority, so far as the petitioner is concerned, within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of the Rules It is also not in dispute that the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is included in the Subordinate Services and is enumerated in Schedule II annexed to the Rules. According to Rule 15 of the Rules, the Head of the Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the State Government is entitled to inflict all the penalties specified in Rule 14. THE disciplinary authority for the petitioner was, therefore, the Inspector General of Police, who is the Head of the Department. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 requires that the disciplinary authority should frame definate charges on the basis of the allegations on which the enquiry is proposed to be held and a copy of such charges, together with the statement of allegations on which they are based should be comanunicated in writing to the Government servant concerned. THEre after the written statement submitted by the employee has also to be considered by the disciplinary authority. Under sub rule (4) of Rule 16, the disciplinary authority is empowered to nominate a Board of Enquiry or an enquiry officer, if it does not proceed to enquire the matter itself.